A little research tells me that the cat above, a Venezia by FP, has only 2' of bridgdeck clearance, and yes, the dreaded berth "shelves." After looking at photos of this model, I suspect that the 2' is the maximum, not the minimum, bridgedeck clearance.

Not just that comment. All of Catty's comments are basically the same - cats dont sail fast, they don't tack, and they don't go to windward. Oh, and Proa's are even worse. Unquote.

Mmmm 44c we seem to miss the points (of both my posts and what a quote is). I suspect when you finally launch your cat and gain some experience sailing them, your views may change. I was merely pointing out some of the home truths of cruising multihull performance., learn't over many years on my own cats , and sailing in company with others.

I find some of the performance claims repeated by inexperienced multi sailors disturbing. I recently met a lovely cruising couple that were on their second cruising cat after only 18 months ,having sold their first bridgedeck cruising cat thinking it faulty in design as they weren"t wizzing everywhere at 10 knots. The second from a different designer was little different.

As a certain scottish comedian uses his multi coloured coat and green goatie beard as a, quote " a-hole detector" . One can use the same detection system amongst cruising yachties with the simple question, " what average speeds do you plan passages on over a season?"

Quite a difference in what's being sold versus what's "preferred" by Forum members. Admittedly, the sailboat production data is for North America only, but can one conclude that multihull fans are more inclined to participate in mono vs. multi discussions than are monohull adherents? Or said another way, are multihullers more apt to leap to the defense of their type of boat?

1.In terms of this post, the number of sailboats of all categories manufactured in the USA is far less relevant than the number of sailboats sold for long range cruising (and I suspect the latter would show a much greater percentage of cats than shown in that statistic). In any case, there are very few cruising cats now built in the United States in comparison to France, South Africa (and I suspect even Australia).

2. If one compares the percentage of cruising cats today to even 25 years ago, the difference is dramatic. There is certainly a trend towards cats that I imagine is reflected in the poll.

3. The fact that someone buys a monohull, but would nevertheless prefer a multi should not be surprising - multis tend to be more expensive.

4. The owners of multis are more frequently called upon to defend their boats because more people have experience with monos and because many posters without experience (and without knowledge of the advancements in the design/construction of multis) perpetuate myths: they can't sail to windward, capsize easily, break apart in heavy seas, etc., etc. In sailboats, as in most areas apart from science, advancements in design/technology often take awhile to be generally accepted. For example, 25 years ago the vast majority of new sailboats were sold with hank-on, rather than furling jibs (indeed if one considers all categories of sailboats, this may still be the case!). To you, then, hank-on jibs were (and perhaps still are) preferred for cruising.

Similarly, the vast majority of keel-boats today have fin keels - I guess that means that your full keelboat is not the 'preferred design' for cruising.

5. If your stat is the answer, then there is no need for this debate - more monohulls are made in the US and therefore they are to be 'preferred' for cruising. More fin keels are produced than full keels, therefore they are preferred for cruising. More light displacement monohulls are produced than moderate to heavy displacement, and therefore they are preferred for cruising. More sailboats are produced with arrangements for only a singleanchor, and therefore that is to be preferred for cruising. The list is virtually infinite (and the conclusions infinitely sillly).

And Sneuman, I understand that you find cats ugly. And while you agree that this is a subjective opinion (taste invariably is), I don't understand how that makes a multihull less suitable/preferable for cruising (the subject of this post).

Your concerns about the 'patio doors' on so many cats is answered in part by Dave of 2hulls - who owns a Catana that has not only circumnavigated, but rounded Cape Horn; and by Dave of Maxing Out, who has a post concerning the same based upon his experience in his Privilige 39 during his 11 year circumnavigation. Simply put, in winds over 50 knots don't run with the storm in a cat, but lay to a sea-anchor. In that case, you need not worry about the cockpit being 'pooped'. In conditions less than that, they produce absolutely no risk since the stern of a cat is much more bouyant than a mono.

This subject makes for an interesting topic for debate - precisely because there is no definitive answer. Perhaps in another 100 years (a relatively short period in the overall history of sail) we will have more conclusive answers. But the (highly) subjective 'ugliness' of catamarns and stats concerning the total number of sailboats of all types manufactured in the USA are hardly helpful in determining their relative merit for cruising.

Simply put, in winds over 50 knots don't run with the storm in a cat, but lay to a sea-anchor.

Brad,
You hit squarely on a point I made in the aforementioned "long-lost thread," i.e., the surrender of active tactics for passive ones. There aren't that many options in heavy weather, and you just crossed one off the list.

besides, a broaching wave could send just as much water into the cockpit. If you want to make the case that those patio doors are strong enough to withstand the force of tons of seawater, I have no evidence to contradict you. However, in the kinds of extreme conditions we're discussing, I have seen one-by-two 1/2" thick Lexan port stove in by a broadside. That provided considerably less area exposed to the force. In any case, I only expressed this as a worry, as did at least one experienced catamaran sailor here ... so, I don't think my concern is entirely misplaced.

Sneuman, I'm not saying that there is no basis for concern. Indeed, in a number of earlier posts on heavy-weather tactics I suggested that, for precisely that reason, the series droguemay be less suitable in ultimate conditions for many cruising cats than it is for monos with high bridgedecks and solid companionway doors. I have also written that although my companionway door is relatively small (24 inches wide approx.) and has 3/8" tempered glass with an aluminum frame (and although my boat received Lloyd's unlimited offshore certifiication), I carry both a series drogueand a sea-anchor and have thought about upgrading to an aluminum companionway door with dogs.

Time will tell whether the typically large companionway doors on cats prove problematic, but with many so equipped having received offshorecertification from numerous recognized bodies, I am not prepared to say that they are unseaworthy.
What is more, there are numerous cats that have safely circumnavigated (including ones on this site) who have had no difficulties with what you describe as 'patio doors'. I guess it is the use of the term 'patio doors' which caused me to take some offence. To my knowledge no builder of production cats (including FP) uses 'patio doors' designed and intended for homes. Yes they slide (of course, so do companionway drop boards - and they have the disadvantage of not being held captively in place. Frankly, I would be interested in seeing if the standard, louvered teak companionway drop board is able to withstand the same impact as the so-called 'patio doors' that have been specified for use in many production cats.

I guess it is the use of the term 'patio doors' which caused me to take some offence.

My apologies. I admit it was "fire for effect" as they say in the artillery. My bad.

Just to reiterate: I have had three pleasant crossings of the Gulf of Thailand in big cats (a Lagoon, a F-P, and something else that I cannot now recall). The worst conditions, which weren't bad at all, were a 1.5- to 2-meter chop. There was slapping and leaking through the escape hatch on one hull, but nothing serious.

What do you think about Wharrams? I was aboard one in Koh Chang. Simple, lots of storage.

I did qualify by saying I hadn't heard of anyone who had a catamaran being pooped, and I know a lot of catamaran circumnavigators. Regarding the mono, multi statistics, I would imagine over 95% of US made monohulls never make any transatlantic passage, but almost everyone one the catamarans do as part of their maiden voyage. For our particular boat, all of them have to round the cape on their delivery. As to being pooped, it's very different than an aft cockpit monohull. In an aft cockpit Bavaria 47 the furthest aft portion of the cockpit is about one ft from the end of the transom. Below that is the engine room. That's a lot of mass with relatively little bouyancy aft to lift the boat. A square wave coming screaming from behind would quickly hit the back of their boat and if it were over 5 ft high could poop their cockpit. In our boat the end of the transoms is 6 ft further back from the end of the cockpit. The transoms are completely hollow bouyancy chambers. That's a lot of lightweight trapped air moving the boat up quickly on the waves. The aft portion of our cockpit is also completely solid, presenting a wall from 2.5 ft above the water to 5 ft above the water. Above this is a large arch which connects to our bimini. The arch is 10 ft above the waterline and extends aft and between the hulls. So a breaking wave would have to go between the arch and the bimini and fill the cockpit before the aft portion of the boat would lift it up and over the wave. In reality, that's just not scenario that would happen to our boat. I would imagine though if you had a catamaran where there was a lot of weight aft then it would be much more susceptible to being pooped. I'm not the most experienced sailor though out there, the worst I've seen is about 14 ft waves off the coast of cuba. In a nasty storm in the ocean that's nothing.

I did qualify by saying I hadn't heard of anyone who had a catamaran being pooped, and I know a lot of catamaran circumnavigators. Regarding the mono, multi statistics, I would imagine over 95% of US made monohulls never make any transatlantic passage, but almost everyone one the catamarans do as part of their maiden voyage. ...

I wasn't trying to suggest that cats get pooped any more often than monos (maybe, as you say, less often). I was only pointing out that it can happen - and then those big sliding companionway doors. Perhaps I should have parsed my post more carefully.

As for my heavy-weather experience, as I have stated before - it is limited to one incident; it just happened to be a survival situation. BUT, I frequently think about the next time, which I sincerely hope never comes. What would I do, what would I not do ...?

Sneuman, Wharrams have a huge following and I must admit that having slats rather than a solid cockpit sole is comforting. That being said, the 'v-shaped- hulls offer very little load carrying capability, the lack of boards/keels impairs pointing ability, the lack of transoms reduces bouyancy aft (even Prout eventually went away from canoe sterns). Further, as they are largely homebuilts, there is a wide variance in construction quality.

As to concerns about large, glass companionway doors, I wonder if anyone has given thought to storm shields? They are frequently used offshore in monohulls with large, vulnerable coach house windows and it strikes me that they could be built in sections out of aluminum or composite cored panels. The frames on these sliding doors generally seem quite substantial and I suspect that weight could be kept fairly low (and storage made fairly easy if built in sections). As I see it, the only real difficulty would be in getting the added panel to slide into the existing gap (they may have to be installed on the inside of the doors, depending upon the configuration).

I don't think your being obsessive at all. I've personally been pooped on monohulls that wouldn't have touched a St Francis, a lot just depends on a few factors, how much mass do you have aft, how far back does your cockpit sit, and what is the configuration of the cockpit. I once came way too close to a reef and was pushed up and over on a large breaking wave. The boat stayed dry, but it was the least of my worries, sort of like finding yourself in a huge rollercoaster with no notice. In storm conditions we use solid bars to hold the doors shut tight, simply because that's the most secure way to have them when the boat is sloshing about and the doors could otherwise be banging together. Franky too in storm conditions you want the inside to be a bit more peaceful for the wife and kids. As to calculating speed between anchorages, I would use whatever time I realized was appropriate. On my old 36 ft catamaran weighed down with all of our provisions in trade winds we'd go around 8 knots all day long. Our new boat, with the same stuff, should go a couple knots faster in the trades. But the boat is 5000 lbs lighter than most boats her size and has significantly less windage and frankly less space than many of her modern breatheren which I've buddy cruised and noticed they too went about 8 knots in the same conditions as we did with our PDQ 36, a lagoon 41, a privilege 42 and a prout snowgoose 37 all did about our speed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sneuman

I wasn't trying to suggest that cats get pooped any more often than monos (maybe, as you say, less often). I was only pointing out that it can happen - and then those big sliding companionway doors. Perhaps I should have parsed my post more carefully.

As for my heavy-weather experience, as I have stated before - it is limited to one incident; it just happened to be a survival situation. BUT, I frequently think about the next time, which I sincerely hope never comes. What would I do, what would I not do ...?

In our boat the end of the transoms is 6 ft further back from the end of the cockpit. The transoms are completely hollow bouyancy chambers. That's a lot of lightweight trapped air moving the boat up quickly on the waves. The aft portion of our cockpit is also completely solid, presenting a wall from 2.5 ft above the water to 5 ft above the water.

I was interested to read this, and went and measure my own boat. It's 11 feet from the transom to the rear end of the cockpit. Like yours there is also the aft beam, which is slightly higher, at around 5'6" above the waterline. I'd rate the likelyhood of being pooped as quite low.

Not just that comment. All of Catty's comments are basically the same - cats dont sail fast, they don't tack, and they don't go to windward. Oh, and Proa's are even worse. Unquote.

Mmmm 44c we seem to miss the points (of both my posts and what a quote is). I suspect when you finally launch your cat and gain some experience sailing them, your views may change. I was merely pointing out some of the home truths of cruising multihull performance., learn't over many years on my own cats , and sailing in company with others.

I find some of the performance claims repeated by inexperienced multi sailors disturbing. I recently met a lovely cruising couple that were on their second cruising cat after only 18 months ,having sold their first bridgedeck cruising cat thinking it faulty in design as they weren"t wizzing everywhere at 10 knots. The second from a different designer was little different.

As a certain scottish comedian uses his multi coloured coat and green goatie beard as a, quote " a-hole detector" . One can use the same detection system amongst cruising yachties with the simple question, " what average speeds do you plan passages on over a season?"

There are fast boats and slow boats. Since you constantly keep telling us cats are slow, and since you constantly refuse to tell us exactly what experience this is based on, we are left to assume the cat or cats you owned (if they actually do exist) were slow ones.

With our old steel monohull we usually based our ETA on 5 knots average on passage. But we would often have to motor a LOT to manage that. (If we were aiming at a tide window for a bar crossing for example) Friends of ours who own a 44C, tell us they usually manage 7 - 8 knots average. But they spend far less time motoring to do it.

Friends of ours who own a 44C, tell us they usually manage 7 - 8 knots average. But they spend far less time motoring to do it.

A subtlety that goes unnoticed by yet-to-convert mono diehards is the motoring performance of cats. They are very good trawlers.

Using my boat as a comparison, what's the size of the diesel in a 47' mono? 100 hp? When he has to motor, how fast can he go and how much fuel does he burn? Max is hull speed, right? Maybe 8.5 - 9 kts max? Will he try to make hull speed or throttle back and settle for about 7 kts? Fuelconsumption? - I don't really know.

The subtlety is that when cats have to motor they can do so with one engine. Mine are 50hp each, but I can make 7 kts with one at 80% WOT. This burns about 1 gallon/hour which has to be less than a 100hp diesel driving a 47' mono at 7 kts. (Adding the second engine only gets me a little less than 2 more kts.)

So, when cats HAVE to motor, they can do so cheaper. Maybe a lot cheaper.